Advertisements

AE Public BB

Post by Cubist
Again: Any substantive discussion of the topic at hand would inevitably lead to a topic which Our Gracious Host would prefer that we avoid. I would recommend that you, too, investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit". If you would like to engage in actual discourse on said topic, there is PMs and there is email. And before you conclude that my somewhat elliptical remarks here are born of a lack of respect for evidence, perhaps you might inquire with Our Gracious Host regarding his tolerance for discussion of one particular topic.Or, you know, not.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (socle @ Mar. 22 2014,20:35) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,19:24)Integral curve is similar but grid network vectors show more than one possible (violet) path from each X,Y by there usually being more than one active input.

Following one or more attractors in a circular path back to a given point is something happening over time, temporal, not one propagation timestep that at each shows all possible paths (both short and long) to an attractor.

There is nothing at all wrong with how I explained things.I see. Have you investigated other types of mathematical systems which might have some connection to your theory?Yes, and I came up with what came to mind for you.

The grid cell model is using very simple wave propagation that in turn (and all by itself) produces directional vectors for multiple paths. It's not something I read about and tried, was more like common sense that the grid network model would propagate waves, then after looking at the way the cells were active with each other I noticed they were pointing out the paths that can be taken to reach the transmitting location. I'm not sure whether that has a name, it's not triangulation.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 22 2014,19:46) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.Quote mining? Here's the full text of the post in question:Quote And I called it "self-navigation" because with the grid system in Confidence there is no need for a navigational system that decides what to do next then preplans motor movements in the form of motor commands to move it along some path. It it-self already knows where it wants to navigate, and can virtually perceive all the paths that can be taken to get there including long ways it can go.What did you mean by "virtually"? If you're using the standard sense of the word, you mean that it can perceive almost all of the paths. If you were using the computer science sense of "virtual" there is a significantly different meaning.The word "virtual" is to indicate that the entity exists in a computer simulation, as opposed to the real world where it would then have a brain made of living neurons. One uses math and logic, the other molecules and cells, to produce the needed direction vectors. In both cases there is a grid map representative of what the entity perceives at that moment in time for possible paths it can take, where some follow the barrier/wall while others straight at it. Which path it takes to the attractor(s) depends on behavior. Some insects prefer to follow walls for as far as they can go (would choose an outer angular vector for direction), others fly the shortest route (would use average central angle they point towards). Regardless of which possible path is ultimately taken what is being perceived still includes all of them, at the same time, even paths they would not ever follow (but another would).

Quote usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.

Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...Anyone else want to lock this guy in a room with Erv and a buncha medieval weapons?To see which one hates women the most?You seem to have ERV confused with the gutless bastard who tried to get her fired for opinions she posted online.No. Misogyny is not a unique phenomenon.If you're going to accuse an intelligent, articulate, accomplished woman who is actively working in HIV research of misogyny, you should provide some evidence. If you can't, you should retract your unsupported insult.This leads directly into an topic which Our Gracious Host greatly prefers that we avoid, so I will restrict myself to this one remark on the subject: I would recommend that you investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit".Oh, you can sling unevidenced BS as well as any other fascist propagandist.

Quote usually the women thing is to promote women in science as they historically and today lag behind. I don’t think women can compete with men intellectually because of a lack of motivation or rather not as motivated as men. men are made to be accomplished and women were made to help men only as the bible teaches. in science accomplishment this is made obvious as affirmative action can’t hide the ratio.

Drink until you 1) forget asshats like this exist and2) That all the xtian UDers will call you out on anything that looks like some support of some real science, but never, never this...Anyone else want to lock this guy in a room with Erv and a buncha medieval weapons?To see which one hates women the most?You seem to have ERV confused with the gutless bastard who tried to get her fired for opinions she posted online.No. Misogyny is not a unique phenomenon.If you're going to accuse an intelligent, articulate, accomplished woman who is actively working in HIV research of misogyny, you should provide some evidence. If you can't, you should retract your unsupported insult.This gets into an area which Our Gracious Host does not want to have flare up into a flamewar, so I will restrict myself to this one remark on the subject: Perhaps you might want to investigate the origins of the Online Pocket O' Misogyny which proudly bears the self-granted name of "slymepit".

Post by socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,19:24)Integral curve is similar but grid network vectors show more than one possible (violet) path from each X,Y by there usually being more than one active input.

Following one or more attractors in a circular path back to a given point is something happening over time, temporal, not one propagation timestep that at each shows all possible paths (both short and long) to an attractor.

There is nothing at all wrong with how I explained things.I see. Have you investigated other types of mathematical systems which might have some connection to your theory?

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.Quote mining? Here's the full text of the post in question:Quote And I called it "self-navigation" because with the grid system in Confidence there is no need for a navigational system that decides what to do next then preplans motor movements in the form of motor commands to move it along some path. It it-self already knows where it wants to navigate, and can virtually perceive all the paths that can be taken to get there including long ways it can go.What did you mean by "virtually"? If you're using the standard sense of the word, you mean that it can perceive almost all of the paths. If you were using the computer science sense of "virtual" there is a significantly different meaning.

*Your* poor writing and English usage causes confusion. In another instance in the same post, you say refer to "...complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time." Did you mean all paths the wind might take, or are you referring to an historical map? It matters. If you meant the latter, it has no bearing on the point you're trying to make. Of course, if you meant the former it's a poor analogy.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (socle @ Mar. 22 2014,17:34) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.

It sounds to me like what the Grid Cell Network model demonstrates just toasted your method(s) for eliminating that from your models using lines between points type reasoning, instead of hexagonal grids of angular vectors.It looks like the "paths" you're talking about are integral curves which are solutions to the differential equation corresponding to the field of "changing flow vectors" *cough*.

You're not claiming your bug is aware of all possible paths from one point to another, correct? Cause there's a shedload of them, even on your tiny 16 x 16 grid, even if you assume that paths cannot double back or the like.Integral curve is similar but grid network vectors show more than one possible (violet) path from each X,Y by there usually being more than one active input.

Following one or more attractors in a circular path back to a given point is something happening over time, temporal, not one propagation timestep that at each shows all possible paths (both short and long) to an attractor.

Post by socle
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 22 2014,15:17)Whatever academic snobbery you want to hurl at me next is your choice. The two or three word quote mining for a semantics argument looks good. But I think most will be able to understand the concept of directional vectors being used to make complex weather maps showing all paths the wind went, at a given moment in time. And it makes little sense for me to argue that there are enough neurons in our brain, after providing info on what is now known about neural grid modules.

It sounds to me like what the Grid Cell Network model demonstrates just toasted your method(s) for eliminating that from your models using lines between points type reasoning, instead of hexagonal grids of angular vectors.It looks like the "paths" you're talking about are integral curves which are solutions to the differential equation corresponding to the field of "changing flow vectors" *cough*.

You're not claiming your bug is aware of all possible paths from one point to another, correct? Cause there's a shedload of them, even on your tiny 16 x 16 grid, even if you assume that paths cannot double back or the like.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,15:19)At the Kurzweil link you provided, we see that CNOT wants to get in on some grant money being floated by the Paul Allen Foundation for AI research. He wants sponsorship from an academic institution, but he doesn't want to collaborate with anyone:Quote The budget is supposed to be 3 pages long, which seems excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home).

The way the real world of people and business work nowadays (i.e., with extreme ineptitude, inefficiency, unethical behavior, and illegal behavior), I am leery of any kind of collaborative work anymore. *Always* there are glitches, usually major, show-stopper glitches, usually in such profusion that it becomes ridiculous. I'm going to start counting and documenting these glitches here as they occur, partly out of sordid humor, and partly for those who don't believe how messed up bureaucracy and people are now. I fully predict that there is going to be some huge, ridiculous glitch that either threatens or negates all my efforts on this.They said "excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home)."

From what I read in several threads: They are currently trying to organize group development of a new spatial reasoning model for AI, would rather not have to get overly into neurological details as in the Grid Network topic, and are most enjoying seeing what happens where they try to fund something like that.

At least they're trying to get something funded, while at the same getting the word out that we're around.

Now piss off down to Lucifer. He's got some rrreeeeeeeally special plans for the next eternity. Let's just say that all those years on your knees in church might turn out to be useful practice. B-byeee!"

What ends up with "its smelly little foot in the door" is what really works like the real-thing (as opposed to what really does not) that students bring to class for a science project.

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)You keep avoiding the question: There are researchers getting funding for work in cognitive science, and in general they produce useful results-

Only around 1% of what is published is actually "useful" to me. Much of it is just good use of media for another neural network model that's much like all the rest. I still enjoy reading some of the student papers on models they build, but unless you know what all models are missing it can seem like progress is being made even though it would only either get fried by an invisible moving shock zone or stay in the center where it's always safe (but no treats).

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Mar. 20 2014,08:58)-results that you continually cite as significant to your "work." If your own little bag of turds is as significant as you think it is, why no support? Why hasn't a researcher who can get funding taken it up and pursued it? Where are your supporters?

What are you calling "supporters"? Funding sources throwing money to non-corporate entities? Academic representatives who only speak for the anti-ID movement all blogging about why the new intelligence model is of interest from an AI perspective? Or are you talking about this sort of networking where I mentioned PSC as a possible partner in an online project to further advance the state of the art in spacial navigation models?

In my situation the problem is most with ones claiming to be heroic academic protectors of science who are still purposely helping to destroy it by making it seem like all that is happening is best brushed-off and ignored.You seem to have found a few more delusional code monkeys to share your castle in the sky. At the Kurzweil link you provided, we see that CNOT wants to get in on some grant money being floated by the Paul Allen Foundation for AI research. He wants sponsorship from an academic institution, but he doesn't want to collaborate with anyone:Quote The budget is supposed to be 3 pages long, which seems excessive for the kind of research I had envisioned (one guy working alone on his laptop, maybe from home).

The way the real world of people and business work nowadays (i.e., with extreme ineptitude, inefficiency, unethical behavior, and illegal behavior), I am leery of any kind of collaborative work anymore. *Always* there are glitches, usually major, show-stopper glitches, usually in such profusion that it becomes ridiculous. I'm going to start counting and documenting these glitches here as they occur, partly out of sordid humor, and partly for those who don't believe how messed up bureaucracy and people are now. I fully predict that there is going to be some huge, ridiculous glitch that either threatens or negates all my efforts on this.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 20 2014,14:35)I see you've found a fellow fantasist/whinger at kurzweilai.net in CNOT.You sure read a lot into a forum that's popular for its AI related news and discussions, provided by (from what I read) the head of Google home-robot engineering. Their way of thinking big (as opposed to thinking small) does not bother me.

Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 20 2014,15:22)...In my situation the problem is most with ones claiming to be heroic academic protectors of science who are still purposely helping to destroy it by making it seem like all that is happening is best brushed-off and ignored.No one here, at least, is claiming to be "heroic academic protectors of science". That would be bombastic and more in your style. At the least, no one rightfully claims heroism for themselves.The real tragedy isn't even that you are required to elevate your enemies to make your insignificance less apparent -- after all, it's important people who are keeping me down/suppressing my work.No, the real tragedy is that no one needs to direct others to brush aside your "theory" and/or ignore it. Everyone sees quite clearly on first exposure that that is the only possible response. The response is only reinforced when your career of distraction, deflection and avoidance when questioned about said "theory" are noticed, as they will be by anyone who follows up for LULz of seeing if you could possibly be serious.

Post by Richardthughes
Quote Or are you talking about this sort of networking where I mentioned PSC as a possible partner in an online project to further advance the state of the art in spacial navigation models?

RSS Syndication

Antievolutionists Say the Darndest Things

Antievolutionists often express outrage over alleged incivility from those who oppose their efforts to evade the establishment clause of the First Amendment. But they have no difficulty in dishing out the abuse themselves. Here is a sample from the Invidious Comparisons thread that documents egregious behavior on the part of the religious antievolution advocates.

IDC advocate Phillip E. Johnson:

Gould’s uncomfortable situation reminds me of the self-created predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev in the last years of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev recognized that something had gone wrong with the Communist system, but thought that the system itself could be preserved if it was reformed. His democratic friends warned him that the Marxist fundamentalists would inevitably turn against him, but he was unwilling to endanger his position in the ruling elite by following his own logic to its necessary conclusion. Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory.